[AUUG-Talk]: Wind up AUUG: Objections?

[Lawrie Brown]

Hi Kevin

On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 12:44:35PM +1100, Kevin Dawson wrote:

Hmmm - this looks like its been in a time warp, as I've not seen
it before. However info is useful, thanks.

> On Wed, 2008-10-22 at 07:59 +1100, steve jenkin wrote:
> As I see it, this is a summary of our pickles:
>       * We held a dissolution ballot about a year ago and it was
>         defeated.
>       * A few members expressed a desire to rebuild the organisation
>         into some semblance of working order - came up with ideas,
>         hopes, etc.  Nothing has come of this.

I'm sure you've seen the flurry of posts on AUUG Talk since (and also
now on the AUUG Preservation Society list).

>       * CAV (Consumer Affairs Victoria, in its role as Registrar of
>         Incorporated Associations) still thinks that Robert Elz is the
>         Public Officer, rather than David Purdue.  Clearly kre isn't
>         able to act in that capacity because he is not a resident of
>         Victoria and our attempts to clarify the position haven't given

Thankyou - I wasn't sure who was. Clearly this needs to be changed 
if we want to control the wind-up.

>       * We have no current Board, so the only person with any real
>         authority is the Public Officer.  Refer to previous point.  Even
>         my position as Returning Officer will probably have minimal

There appear to be two people last on the board contactable and making
any noise at all, myself and Peter Wishart (and I've spoken to Peter
today). For the record, I am a currently financial member.

>       * Having no Board also means that legally, we don't exist at all
>         and are even in breach of our Constitution and the Act because
>         we haven't disposed of our assets in the prescribed manner.

Its still not too late to have an election and then an AGM (the 
constitution says sometime in 2nd half of year).

>       * We have 24 members at present, based on the list I had for the
>         previous dissolution motion.  As the months roll on, they become
>         unfinancial.  Most will be out by the end of the year.

Yes, I asked Peter for a list of currently financial members and
I will contact them when I get it to determine our next steps.

> AUUG can construe this as a wakeup call - either become active again
> Real Soon Now, or we will simply remain a group of people on a mailing
> list wondering when someone (else) is going to "do something" while

I am trying to take steps to reach a resolution. Per discussions on
this list, Stephen Rothwell has started creation of the AUUG Preservation
Society - this should become concrete fairly soon.

> A particular concern is the Lions Trust.  Various people have said, with
> various levels of conviction, that it would remain unaffected should
> AUUG disappear.  I know very little about the workings of trusts, so

Steps are being taken to transfer those assets to the UNSW Lions Chair.
Ensuring that has been done before wind-up is on my list. I'm liasing
with Peter and Chris Vance on that one.

> > There is at least one group (Karl, groggy, StephenR) who've indicated
> > they wish to take over the domains. AUUG has the ability to transfer
> > items, but that would need a functioning board.

Yes - in train, see above.

> The Board is not able to simply transfer the assets to individuals.
> Refer Constitution.  There is a provision in the Act for a special

Yes, but they're going to be transferred to a properly constructed
organisation - as far as I can see, as long as this is consistent
with AUUG's aims, this is fine.

> resolution for distribution of assets, but we have to become functional
> again to wind up and make such a resolution.

Yes - I'm looking at trying to get a minimal board up so we can then call
an AGM/SGM to distribute most assets as desired, and then finally
initiate wind-up once thats done.

> Probably not - they would simply wind us up involuntarily (it's provided
> for in the Act).  If the idea is put to them, they might tell us to get
...
> reasonable chance of electing a Board.  If we're going to wind up, I'd
> rather that it was on our terms, not the Registrar's.

Yup - if we don't get our act together, once there are less than 5
members, this will likely occur. And we'll have little/no control
of the disposal of assets.

> Those who want AUUG to continue (and particularly those who voted
> against dissolution last time) - please start delivering, even if it's
> only ultimately toward another dissolution motion.

Thats what I'm trying to do.

Regards
Lawrie